On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:43, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> I'd say that points 2 and 3 is what consensus looks like.
>> Exactly.
Hi Chris,
Then what's your beef with what Marty said? I saw the part where he
claimed the proposal on the table does not have consensus. He's right.
Did I miss some other part where he claimed there was no consensus to
pursue development of an acceptable inter-RIR transfer process?
Even I want to see inter-RIR transfers. I just don't want to see them
directly or indirectly drain ARIN's remaining free pool. Vague
statements on the principles of need don't get that job done. Neither
do proposals containing obvious poison pills for APNIC.
And frankly I'm very against creating global policy that restricts RIR
choices in a sidewise manner. This is a little like the federal law
the revokes highway funds for any state that doesn't set the drinking
age at 21. What happens five years from now when *we* see the wisdom
of stepping away from what by then could be an expensive nuisance
justification process for IPv4 transfers?
Regardless, there is most emphatically no consensus that 2011-1 should
be the law of the land and it would be inappropriate to move it last
call at this time.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.combill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004